qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 4/9] qemu-sockets: add error propagation to U


From: Paolo Bonzini
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 4/9] qemu-sockets: add error propagation to Unix socket functions
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2012 08:09:20 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120911 Thunderbird/15.0.1

Il 02/10/2012 01:05, Luiz Capitulino ha scritto:
> On Mon, 01 Oct 2012 21:07:52 +0200
> Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden> wrote:
> 
>> Il 01/10/2012 19:17, Luiz Capitulino ha scritto:
>>>>>      if (bind(sock, (struct sockaddr*) &un, sizeof(un)) < 0) {
>>>>> -        fprintf(stderr, "bind(unix:%s): %s\n", un.sun_path, 
>>>>> strerror(errno));
>>>>> +        error_set(errp, QERR_SOCKET_BIND_FAILED);
>>> This drops error information, making the error message worse. I believe
>>> you have a reason to not use error_setg()?
>>
>> I was waiting for the end of the discussion on errno to add
>> error_setg_errno.
> 
> The decision was to not add errno now, right?

I don't remember, but we can still add a function that takes an errno
value and tacks on the strerror(errno).

>>> Also, I see that in some hunks you do something like:
>>>
>>>   -            fd = unix_listen_opts(opts);
>>>   +            fd = unix_listen_opts(opts, NULL);
>>>
>>> This will break printing the error message to the user. It's fine by me if
>>> you do this only temporarily (ie. this is fixed by the next or a later 
>>> patch),
>>> but want to double check that you're aware of it.
>>
>> I want to avoid super-large patch series, so I would prefer to fix it
>> later in the 1.3 development.
> 
> We at least need to have the patches flying, I don't think it's ok to
> break error reporting like that.

I disagree because we still have two months before release, but I'll see
what I can do.

Paolo




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]